ISSN: 1309-8780
e-ISSN: 2822-3985

Some Observations on the Architecture of the Roman Theatre of Iznik (Nicaea)

Aygün Ekin Meriç1, Ali Kazım Öz2

1Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, Edebiyat Fakültesi, Arkeoloji Bölümü, İzmir/TÜRKİYE https://ror.org/00dbd8b73
2Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, Edebiyat Fakültesi, Arkeoloji Bölümü, İzmir/TÜRKİYE https://ror.org/00dbd8b73

Keywords: Architecture, Archaeology, Roman, Nicaea, Theatre.

Introduction

Nicaea was located beside a wide lake and fertile plain; therefore the importance of the city increased throughout all periods[1] . The city, which is notable for its climate and geographical features, was a social, political, and economic center of the Bithynia Region (fig 1). It has always been one of the most important cities in Bithynia during the Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine, Anatolian Seljuk, and Early Ottoman Periods. The most remarkable structure of the city, which hosts many buildings from the Roman Period to the Ottoman Period (fig. 2), is the Roman theatre (fig. 3).

The first examples of this type of Roman theatre can be found in Rome, such as the Pompeii[2] and Marcellus[3] theatres, which were built in the 1st century BC. Ancient theatre structures in the entire Türkiye are dated to the Hellenistic and Roman Periods and divided into three groups according to their usage and periods[4] . The Roman theatres such as Nicaea, Side[5] , Aspendus,[6] etc., and the Hellenistic theatres which lost their originality in the Roman Period such as Ephesus[7] , Aphrodisias,[8] etc., as well as theatres in the Hellenistic style such as Priene[9] and Pergamum[10].

The Iznik Theatre is located on the southwestern side of the city, close to the city walls and Lake Iznik (Ascania Limme). One of the imposing archeological structures of Anatolia, the theatre has been a frequent destination of travelers for many years. Lubenau[11] thought that this was a palace remnant, and D. Sestini[12] considered it a water depot. It was first discovered that the building belonged to a theatre by R. Pococke[13], and C. Texier[14] later demonstrated that it was part of the city. The first scientific studies were conducted by A.M. Schneider through drilling campaigns aimed at identifying the underground remains, and the sketches and photographs from these studies were published[15].

The most important information about the history of the Nicaea Theatre is obtained from letters written by the historian Pliny the Younger[16] (AD 62-113), the governor (proconsul) of Bithynia during the Roman Emperor Traian (AD 98-117)[17]. Pliny[18] mentions that the building had not yet been completed due to financial and stability problems[19]. He also states that it was decided to build colonnaded galleries by the public council and philanthropic citizens[20]. Although this is an important document, there is no definite information on whether the work was completed in its entirety. However, the excavations carried out in recent years suggest that the theatre was used. It remains unclear whether it was put into use while the construction was still in progress or after it was completed. The letters also fail to mention the state of the theatre after the large earthquake that occurred 12 years later[21]. In the examinations of architectural plastic elements found during excavations, differences in the architectural blocks of the same building suggest an ancient-period restoration after the earthquake.

According to Pliny’s 39th and 40th letters, the theatre was still under construction in AD 111, despite 10 million sesterces having already been spent. In subsequent letters, Pliny continues to complain about corruption in other development projects in the region[22]. At the end of the letters, he requests an architect from the capital to examine and evaluate the problems in the troubled structures within the Bithynia province. The Emperor rejects his request stating that “There must be plenty of architects to advise you, for there is no province which is without some men of experience and skill in that profession, and remember again that it does not save time to send one from Rome, when so many of our architects come to Rome from Greece”[23].

Architectural Form

The north-facing theatre has a unique vaulted substructure, which is rarely found in ancient times, as it was built on a flat area with very large dimensions[24]. The Nicaea Theatre was constructed using the opus caementicium (Roman concrete) technique using rubble stone and mortar. According to recent research, the boundaries of the theatre have been determined as 102.32 x 79.04 m (fig. 5). The surfaces of the scaenae and analemma walls were covered with limestone blocks. There are various symbols of workshops or master builders who processed the stone in situ or in quarries such as Deliktaş, İnikli, Ömerli, and Sarıkaya[25]. Many parts were removed from the theatre and used in various buildings as well as the city walls. Therefore, the stage building, orchestra floor, analemma walls, arches, and vaults were subsequently destroyed (fig. 4).

Cavea

In the Roman theatre, the rows are as follows: lower, middle, and upper (ima, media, and summa) cavea. The seating blocks of the theatre were not found in situ position and almost all of them were demolished, damaged, or reused in other buildings within the city. Due to recent archaeological excavations, it was understood that we need to revise the information about the theatre from the foundation to the upper gallery[26]. The lower cavea was supported by large trapezoidal vaults, a feature commonly found in major Roman theatres[27], but previously undocumented in Türkiye. It has recently been discovered that the infrastructure consists of seven trapezoidal vaults, followed by ten elevated barrel vaults[28] and four vomitoria[29] (fig. 6). All vaults were connected to each other by means of a tunnel, and access to the orchestra was only possible through the central vault. This circulation network is believed to have been actively used during performances.

The infrastructure was formed by trapezoidal vaults and a double barrel vault system that supports the middle cavea (fig. 7). The outer vaults were added to the middle cavea along with the staircase chases that followed. Based on the archaeological evidence obtained from the excavations, it was understood that the theatre consisted of three parts. The subdivision (ima cavea) was reserved for the executives, priests, soldiers, and high-ranking Roman citizens who attended the performances[30]. The lower cavea was separated from the orchestra floor by a deep conistra[31] measuring 1.34 m in height. Based on a small number of preserved blocks, it was determined that the seating positions were 0.69 m in depth and 0.39 m in height. Additionally, some of the seating rows are backed in order to be used as prohedria (protocol or noble seats) or as a barrier for the praecinctio (diazoma). In contrast to the Greco-Roman architectural tradition[32], the plan of the theatre is formed by eight cunei (wedge-shaped seating sections) with scalae[33] (stairs) between them and 18 rows of seating (figs. 8-9).

The analemma is the term attributed to the wide wall that encloses the lower and middle sections of the theatre. The analemma wall in Nicaea differs from those of all other Roman theatres. It begins in the orchestra area in a horseshoe shape and, after its halfway point, continues parallel to the stage building (fig. 8) . For this reason, it can be said that it possesses features of both Greek and Roman theatre architecture[34] and has the Anatolian type cavea as indicated by Ferrero[35]. The total length of each analemma wall is measured as 28.50 m. There are two large openings in the wall, one leading to the orchestra (additus maximus) and the other (vomitorium) providing direct access to the precinctio (fig. 10). Half of the first and eighth cuneus, adjacent to the analemma wall, were separated as tribunalia[36]. The tribunalia, an architectural element unique to Roman theatres, is a special section for the director and the city’s elders. It can be directly accessed from the stage building via special stairs to the tribunalia.

In ancient theatres, a corridor separates the lower and upper cavea (or more) and provides the circulation of the audience. Precinctio in the Nicaea theatre is about 1.90 m wide. The transition from the precinctio to the seating rows of the middle cavea was possible via five symmetrical steps. Traditionally, the media cavea was often reserved for non-governmental plebs, merchants, foreign guests, and retired soldiers[37]. At the Nicaea Theatre, it is believed that the original seating rows of the middle cavea have not yet been found, but they would likely have had similar dimensions to those of the lower cavea. Accordingly, it is possible that there were 19 rows of seats extending up to the upper cavea. The most significant annex structure on the lower cavea is a church dated to the 13th century AD[38]. Similarly, remains of Byzantine adornments belonging to small chapels have also been found in the theatres of Side[39], Kibyra[40], and Hierapolis[41].

In Pliny’s letters, it is mentioned that a portico was built over the cavea pit. Excavations carried out in recent years have emphasized that the portico built on the cavea may correspond to the summa cavea, which is the third floor of the theatre. This interpretation is based on the fact that architectural evidence of the portico mentioned in the letters was unearthed during the excavations. In Roman theatres, the summa cavea was designed for poor people, women, and slaves, and it was only permitted for standing[42]. Three great pillars in average size of 3.70 x 2.60 m and smaller Corinthian capitals, two fascia architraves, height of 0.70 m, with frieze section left undecorated, console geisons with 0.30 m height that could belong to the portico of the upper cavea[43] (fig. 11) were discovered. Finally, 28 pillars, averaging 4.90 m from the outer wall, are arranged in parallel to the theatre circle and would have supported the upper cavea[44]. Thus, the most important characteristic of all Roman theatres has also been proven in Nicaea. But the question of whether or not the seating positions are in the summa cavea has not been ascertained[45]. It is also possible to build only a gallery with columns (portico/maenianum summum in ligneis) so that the spectators can watch standing.

Orchestra

The orchestra of the Nicaea Theatre is distinct from its contemporary theatres because it has a horseshoe-shaped plan. This indicates that Anatolian culture retained its Hellenistic origins even during the Roman Imperial Period. Therefore, the orchestra was larger than the typical semicircular plan, and the analemma wall was not parallel to the stage. The orchestra has a diameter of 24.22 m and may have once featured rich marble finishes before its destruction. In accordance with the Roman architectural tradition, there is a 1.34 m elevation difference between the orchestra and the cavea. This formation called conistra or kolymbethra was designed for gymnastics and gladiatorial performances in the theatre[46]. Access to the orchestra was provided from both sides through additus maximus for performers while gladiators and animals entered from the central vault beneath the cavea. During the Late Antique Period, a later wall was added to the North of the orchestra within the cavea. This wall contains numerous spolia blocks including Corinthian capitals from the scaenae frons . In the Byzantine Period, theatrical use of the structure ceased, but the orchestra continued to serve religious functions[47], as indicated by the remains of paintings and frescoes on the walls[48].

Stage Building

At the end of the excavations, the entire scaenae, measuring 54.15 x 13.16 m, was uncovered (figs. 8, 12). Only the architectural features of the stage building, whose infrastructure plan is preserved, can be interpreted based on the remaining structures. According to this plan, there are three main entrances and four main rooms separated by an aisle. The stage rooms of the theatre, known as choregia, were used for storing decorations and costume changes[49]. Additionally, there were eight smaller rooms for service purposes surrounding the main rooms. Among these rooms, those forming the outermost line of the stage building were likely used as prascaena. The excavations have not revealed any evidence of a porticus post scaenum, which is expected to be located behind the stage building. Because most of the area where the porticus post scaenum will be located lies outside the fenced excavation area. If the fenced area is expanded northward in the coming years, more definitive information about the porticus post scaenum may be obtained[50]. It can be considered that the four rooms in the southern part of the stage building form a long and high corridor in connection with each other, because we know of similar examples from theatres such as Aspendos[51]. The excavations have not found any evidence of porticus post scaenum, which should be behind the stage building.

There are four niches in the Scaenae Frons. A podium 0.97 m high serves as a base for columns in niches and interconnections. Within these niches, high-quality marble slabs with low-relief depictions covered the clothing of gladiators and the weapons they used during performances. Monoblock marble plasters, which are also used as jambs, were placed on either side of the doors. Among the fragments, mythological figures such as Heracles, Perseus, Pegasus, and Eros appear alongside herbal motifs[52]. Some surfaces of the plasters feature ranke decorations as architectural plastic ornaments. Two Corinthian capitals, which belonged to the antae of scaenae frons are located inside the later wall in front of the stage. It is difficult to obtain detailed information from these blocks, but they can be dated to the beginning of the 2nd cent. AD[53]. The geison of the scaenae frons is surrounded by a console frieze with Medusa heads. Apart from this, information on the decoration of the stage building is obtained from small architectural plastic pieces found in the excavations. Among the fragments are the Corinthian capitals, ranke, anthemion, braid, bay leaf, lesbos kymation, and so on[54]. The diversity of decorative styles highlights the magnificence of the stage building (fig.13). Despite the lack of adequate architectural material, the stage of the Nicaea Theatre is thought to have been at least two stories high[55] and featured a large pulpitum (approx. 5.14 m). The pulpitum[56], where the theatre plays were exhibited between the stage and orchestra, was made of wooden materials at the Nicaea Theatre[57]. The hollows on the marble blocks for wooden beams are still visible. Access to the pulpitum was provided through the five doors of the stage building, as well as the two passages of the versurae. Due to later extensions with different functions built during the Byzantine Period, insufficient information is available regarding the proscaenum and the hyposcaeanum located beneath the pulpitum. Because of its horseshoe-shaped cavea and the presence of five doors on the stage, the Nicaea Theatre can be classified as an Anatolian (Asia Minor) type[58] theatre building[59].

Colonnaded Galeries

During the excavations carried out in 2015-2018, the porticos on both sides of the stage building, which were mentioned in Pliny’s letters to Emperor Trajan, were unearthed. According to these letters, the theatre was still under construction in 111 AD, and it was on the agenda to accept the porticos next to the stage building by private sponsors. The colonnaded galleries[60] located independently in the east and west directions are a tradition in some important Roman theatres[61]. The galleries are the best-preserved building units when considering the other units of the theatre. Therefore, it was possible to create a realistic impression of both galleries. The square structure with an average size of 11.87 x 11.10 m is supported by 12 Corinthian columns. The column bases were placed in postaments with eight corners and 1.38 m high. Due to the architectural finds, the presence of the second floor in the eastern gallery has become certain[62]. Considering the remains, the second floor, 5.96 m in height, was built on the lower floor of approximately 9.65 m in height (fig. 14-15). The presence of hermae in the middle of the parapets between the columns is an unusual situation for theatres (fig. 16). It appears that architectural elements of the second floor were crafted from high-quality marble and exhibit more refined workmanship.

The wall remains unearthed around the galleries during the recent excavations are interesting. Remains of walls with a width of 1.32 m and a door opening of 2.45 m on the outermost line of the stage building were unearthed around the galleries on the east and west. Architectural blocks measuring 1.12 m in width, aligned with the gallery postaments, were placed on this wall at intervals of approximately 2.00 m. The merging of the wall remains with the stage building and being in line with the postaments creates a closed space perception associated with the galleries. The architectural remains in question are outside the archaeological site, which is surrounded by a fence around the eastern and western columned galleries. This place, whose function cannot be clarified, gives the impression of a basilica[63] when compared to its contemporary theatres such as; Bostra[64], Leptis Magna[65], Beneventum[66] and Marcellus[67].

Discussion

The ancient city of Nicaea, which was bequeathed to Rome by testament of the Bithynian Kingdom, gained significance in the Roman period. During the Pax Romana (Roman Peace, 27 BC–AD 180), urban populations in Anatolia grew, and reconstruction and trade activities flourished. Nicaea became the capital of the Bithynian province in the empire and continued its development in terms of political, religious, cultural, social, artistic and architectural aspects. However, due to its location on the North Anatolian Fault Line, the city was frequently damaged by earthquakes[68]. Its rivalry with Nicomedia, the neighboring city from the end of the Hellenistic period, continued in the Roman period as well. The primary reason for this rivalry was the prestige associated with leading ceremonial events, as this signified a city’s prominence and respectability[69]. In addition, the festivals in question were considered a demonstration of loyalty to the Roman rule[70]. The construction of the Nicaea Theatre likely began after the great earthquake of AD 34[71] within this competitive environment in the 1st century AD. At the beginning of the 2nd century AD, Pliny the Younger provided crucial information about the development activities of the Bithynian region[72]. The Emperor Hadrian (AD 117-138) visited Nicaea[73] and provided financial support for reconstruction of the city[74]. During the first few centuries, Nicaea was destroyed because of earthquakes and enemy attacks, especially the Parthian threat and the Gothic invasion[75]. During periods of instability in the eastern border of the empire, Nicaea became a logistical and strategic center rather than a station of the transition routes of the Roman army.

The Nicaea Theatre is a hybrid structure between Roman and Asia Minor (Anatolian) type theatres because of its architectural features such as vaulted substructure, cavea plan with a horseshoe shape, and the presence of five gates in the stage building[76]. A raised substructure is a typical characteristic of Roman theatres. However, an entire cavea supported by large vaults rising from the ground is an uncommon feature. Some theatres such as those in Marcellus[77], Minturnae[78], Beneventum[79] as well as the Theatre of Nicaea exhibit this characteristic. Thus, it is understood that the Theatre of Nicaea is the only structure with this feature in Asia Minor. The Side[80] theatre, which is the most similar to Nicaea, only has the ima cavea built against a slope, while other levels rest on a raised substructure.

The second architectural feature is the horseshoe-shaped plan of the cavea. Since many Greek theatres in Asia Minor were modernized during the Roman Period, this plan became a customary model. Although the Aizanoi[81], Myra,[82] and Perge[83] theatres were built during the Roman Imperial period, the cavea was a horseshoe form and the scaenae frons had five entrances[84]. However, the theatres of Aizanoi[85] and Pessinus were combined with a circus and their scaenae frons was designed in Corinthian and Composite orders[86]. During the Roman reconstruction period (1st century AD), scaenae frons of the theatres at Ephesus[87] and Hierapolis[88] were expanded and redesigned with five doorways[89].

The other unique architectural features of the theatre at Nicaea include the scaenae frons plan, its connection with Nemesis, and a shortcut to the orchestra. The scaenae frons at Nicaea has a straight wall, similar to Aspendus, in contrast to African theatres and many others[90]. The scaenae frons of the theatre of Herodes Atticus at Athens featured four niches and three entrances to the stage building[91]. Similarly, the theatre at Lugdunum[92] like many Roman theatres, had three entrances leading to the scaenae, accompanied by larger niches[93]. The Hadrianic scaenae frons at Stobi[94] in Macedonia was connected with a shrine of Nemesis[95]. A central vaulted entrance leading into the orchestra is a rare feature, observed only at Gabala[96] and Ostia[97] during the Severan Period[98].

Conclusions

Nicaea and its surroundings have been inhabited continuously from the Prehistoric Period to the end of the Ottoman Period. It has been chosen by people for thousands of years because of its fertile plain and livable climate due to its proximity to Lake Iznik. But the attractiveness of this region has brought many attacks, sieges, and warfare. On the other hand, the city also faced many earthquakes because the region is located on the North Anatolian Fault Line. The Roman Theatre of Nicaea has a different, unique position in Turkey and even among ancient theatres in the world due to two important features. First, the theatre is one of the rare structures to provide information about the date of construction and architectural features given by an ancient writer. Pliny the Younger, who served as governor in the Bithynia region in AD 111, wrote letters about Nicaea city and the theatre. The second important feature of building is an unusual infrastructure that was constructed entirely on flat land and completely built up with vaults (fig.17). The utilization of the inside of trapezoidal vaults in the lower cavea is unique among the ancient theatres of Turkey.

In light of the present data and findings, it is assumed that the theatre consisted of three cavea, with a maximum size of 102 x 79 m, a height of 24 m, and an estimated capacity of 10,000 spectators. The auditorium building was elevated by seven trapezoidal and 10 crescent vaults, which are rarely seen in the antiquity of Turkey. It is thought to be a portico instead of the seating rows in the upper cavea, which is peculiar to the Roman theatres. The scaenae frons is at least two floors above the proscaenium and it is understood that this episode was designed in the Corinthian and Composite orders. The colonnaded galleries on each side constitute the most revealing part of the theatre, owing to the uncovered architectural materials and archaeological findings.

As a result of the theatre excavations, it is understood that the Roman theatre was built on a Hellenistic settlement[99]. Despite the loss of function in the Late Roman Period (4th century AD), the theatre was used for different purposes in the Byzantine and Ottoman Periods. The building, which carries all the traces of important events or developments in the city of Nicaea, gives the impression of an open-air museum of the history of Iznik[100].

The everchanging reconstruction activities were planned for centuries in the city and blocks were reclaimed for the construction of new buildings. Therefore, irreparable destruction occurred on the buildings as well as other structures of the city. While the arches, vaults and stands of the structure were well preserved, a small number of in-situ blocks belonging to the cavea and the stage building were recovered. In the scope of the excavation and restoration studies, 1318 architectural blocks were numbered and studied. Among these blocks, 440 item of the architectural blocks are profiled and a few of them can be determined on the structure. However, the vast majority of these blocks belong to the colonnaded galleries, which are built independently and later from the theatre. Furthermore, 1016 architectural pieces that were cut off or shaved from these blocks were examined. The vast majority of these small fragments were found to belong to the scaena frons.

Finally; The recording, Restitution (fig.17) and Restoration Project of the Roman Theatre at Nicaea was prepared in order to protect the multi-layered character, prevent physical destruction and transfer to the future generations in accordance with conservation principles.

ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig. 1. Map of the Bithynia Region (drawing A. K. Öz 2018)

Fig. 2. Map of Nicaea (drawing A. K. Öz 2018)

Fig. 3. General view of theatre (courtesy of the Roman Theatre Excavation at Nicaea 2021)

Fig. 4. Remains of cavea and west analemma (courtesy of the Roman Theatre Excavation at Nicaea 2019)

Fig. 5. General plan of theatre (courtesy of the Roman Theatre Excavation at Nicaea 2017)

Fig. 6. Infrastructural plan of theatre (drawing A. K. Öz 2018)

Fig. 7. Imposing vaulted infrastructure of cavea (courtesy of the Roman Theatre Excavation at Nicaea 2020)

Fig. 8. Illustrated plan of theatre (drawing A.K. Öz, 2018)

Fig. 9. Illustrated section of the theatre (drawing A.K. Öz, 2018)

Fig. 10. Blocks of the west portico and vomitorium (courtesy of the Roman Theatre Excavation at Nicaea 2020)

Fig. 11. Fallen blocks from the portico of upper cavea (courtesy of the Roman Theatre Excavation at Nicaea 2020)

Fig. 12. View from scaenae to cavea (courtesy of the Roman Theatre Excavation at Nicaea 2020)

Fig. 13. Architectural fragments of stage building (courtesy of the Roman Theatre Excavation at Nicaea 2020)

Fig. 14. Illustrated view of east portico (drawing A.K. Öz, 2018)

Fig. 15. Reconstruction of west portico (drawing F. H. Kaya; V. C. Caner, 2016)

Fig. 16. Hermae in east portico (courtesy of the Roman Theatre Excavation at Nicaea 2017)

Fig. 17. Possible reconstruction of theatre (courtesy of the Roman Theatre Excavation at Nicaea 2021)

Citation/Atıf: Ekin Meriç, Aygün-Öz, Ali Kazım, “Some Observations on the Architecture of the Roman Theatre of Iznik (Nicaea)”, Höyük,15, 2025, p. 113-142.

Ethics Committee Approval

It is declared that scientific and ethical principles were complied with during the preparation of this study and all the works referred are mentioned in the bibliography.

Author Contributions

Planning of the Study/Çalışmanın Tasarlanması Author/Yazar-1 (%50) - Author/Yazar-2 (%50)
Collecting Data/Veri Toplanması Author/Yazar-1 (%50) - Author/Yazar-2 (%50)
Data Analysis/Veri Analizi Author/Yazar-1 (%50) - Author/Yazar-2 (%50)
Writing the Article/Makalenin Yazımı Author/Yazar-1 (%50) - Author/Yazar-2 (%50)
Submission of the Article and Revisions/ Makale Gönderimi ve Revizyonu Author/Yazar-1 (%50) - Author/Yazar-2 (%50)

Conflict of Interest

The Author(s) declare(s) that there is no conflict of interest.

Financial Disclosure

This study was supported by the projects of Dokuz Eylül University BAP Coordination Unit. Project Numbers: 2018.KB.SOS.012 and 2019.KB.SOS.006

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, Turkish Historical Society, Dokuz Eylül University, Bursa Metropolitan Municipality and Iznik Municipality for their in-kind support in the excavation carried out between 2016-2024.

References

  • Abbasoğlu-Delemen 2003
  • Abbasoğlu, H.-Delemen, İ., “Remains from Ancient Nicaea”, İznik Throughout History, eds. I. Akbaygil-İ. Delemen-O. Aslanapa, İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, İstanbul, 189-197.
  • Akyol 2016
  • Akyol, A. A., İznik Tiyatrosu ve Çevre Yapıları Malzeme Analizi Raporu, Ankara.
  • Alanyalı 2007
  • Alanyalı, H. S., “Side Tiyatrosunda Yeni Yapılan Araştırmalar Işığında Scaenae Frons Kaset Kabartmaları ve Dionysos Frizi”, Side’ye Emek Verenler Sempozyumu, 20-22 Nisan 2007, Antalya, 84-91.
  • Bieber 1961
  • Bieber, M., The History of the Greek and Roman Theatre, Princeton University Press, New Jersey.
  • Bomgardner 2016
  • Bomgardner, D. L., “The Theatre-Temple Complex at Leptis Magna: Multiple Dimensions of Functionality or There’s More Than One Way to Act on the Emperor”, Theatrebauten als Teil Monumentaler Heiligtümer in den Nortwestlichen Provinzen des Imperium Romanum: ArchitekturOrganisation-Nutzung, Internationals Kolloquium in Augusta Raurica, 18-21 September 2013, Forschungen in August 50, Muttenz, 63-80.
  • Bosch 1948
  • Bosch, C., “Nikaia (İznik) Bayram Oyunları”, Belleten, XII/46, 325-349.
  • Boz 2006
  • Boz, B., Structural Analysis of Historic Aspendos Theatre, (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi), Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
  • Cassius Dio 1914
  • Cassius Dio, Roman History, trans. E. Cary–H. B. Foster, London.
  • Doğancı 2001
  • Doğancı, K., “Bursa ve Civarını Etkileyen Depremler (M.S. 4. Yüzyıla Kadar)”, Bursa Yöresi’nin Depremselliği ve Deprem Tarihi, ed. N. Abacı, Uludağ Üniversitesi Rektörlüğü Yayınları, Bursa, 61-66.
  • Doğancı 2015
  • Doğancı, K., “Antik Kaynaklar Işığında Eskiçağ’da Nikomedia (İzmit) ve Civarını Etkileyen Depremler”, Karamürsel Alp ve Kocaeli Tarihi Sempozyumu II, 4-6 Nisan 2015, İzmit, 119-130.
  • Doğancı 2019
  • Doğancı, K., “Hellespontos ve Çevresini Etkileyen Depremler (MÖ 3000-MS 6. yy)”, History Studies, 11/2, 535-555.
  • Dörpfeld-Reisch 1907
  • Dörpfeld, W-Reisch, E., Das Griechische Theatre, Legare Street Press, Athens.
  • Duceroy-Audin 1960
  • Duceroy, A.-Audin, A., “Le rideau de scène du Théâtre de Lyon”, Gallia, 18, 57-82.
  • Durm 1881
  • Durm, J., Die Baukunst der Griechen, in Handbuch der Architektur. Zweiter Theile: Die Baustile, 1. Band, Darmstadt.
  • Ekin Meriç 2018
  • Ekin Meriç, A., “Hellenistic Pottery Found in the Roman Theatre of Nicaea”, Jahreshefte Des Österreichischen Archaologischen Institutes in Wien, 87, 85-122.
  • Ekin Meriç 2019
  • Ekin Meriç, A., “İznik Tarihini Simgeleyen Bir Anıt: Antik Roma Tiyatrosu”, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitü Dergisi, 21/2, 339-355.
  • Ekin Meriç vd. 2018
  • Ekin Meriç, A.-Öz, A. K.-Köşklük Kaya, N.-Kaya, F. H.-Kardoruk, N., “İznik Roma Tiyatrosu 2016 Yılı Kazı ve Restorasyon Çalışmaları”, 39. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, II, Bursa, 285-300.
  • Ekin Meriç vd. 2019
  • Ekin Meriç, A.-Öz, A. K.-Köşklük Kaya, N.-Kaya, F. H.-Kardoruk, N., “İznik Roma Tiyatrosu 2017 Yılı Kazı ve Restorasyon Çalışmaları”, 40. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, I, Ankara, 293-310.
  • Erim 1976
  • Erim, K. T., “Excavations at Aphrodisias in Caria 1974”, Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi, 23/1, 25- 50.
  • Eusebius 2008
  • Eusebius, Chronicle, trans. R. Bedrosian, New Jersey.
  • Evans 2005
  • Evans, J. A., Arth & Humanities Through the Eras, Ancient Greece and Rome 1200 B.C.E -476 C.E., Thomson Gale, Detroit.
  • Eyice 1988
  • Eyice, S., Nicaea İznik Tarihçesi ve Eski Eserleri, Sanat Tarihi Araştırmaları Dergisi Yayını, İstanbul.
  • Ferrero 1988
  • Ferrero, D. B., Batı Anadolunun Eskiçağ Tiyatroları, çev. E. Özbayoğlu, İtalyan Kültür Heyeti Arkeoloji Araştırmaları Bölümü Yayınları, Ankara.
  • Fiechter 1914
  • Fiechter, E. R., Die Baugeschichtliche Entwicklung des Antiken Theatres, München.
  • Gebhard 2012
  • Gebhard, E., “Discovery of the First Theatre at Stobi”, Folia Archaeologica Balkanica II, Skopje, 325-346.
  • Gerkan 1921
  • Gerkan, A., Das Theatre von Priene, München.
  • Hanson 1959
  • Hanson, J. A., Roman Theatre-Temples, Princeton University Press, New Jersey.
  • Heberdey vd. 1913
  • Heberdey, R.-Niemann, G.-Wilberg, W., Das Theatre in Ephesos, II, Forschungen in Ephesos, Österreichischen Archaeologischen Institute, Wien.
  • Heilmeyer 1970
  • Heilmeyer, W. D., Korinthische Normal kapitelle, Studien zur Geschichte der Römischen Architektur Dekoration, Kerle Verlag, Heidelberg.
  • Horace 1989
  • Horace, Epistles Book II and Epistle to the Pisones (Ars Poetica), ed. N. Rudd, Cambridge.
  • Iannace-Trematerra 2013
  • Iannace, G.-Trematerra A., “The Rediscovery of Benevento Roman Theatre Acoustics”, Journal of Cultural Heritage, 1-6.
  • Isler 1994
  • Isler, H. P., “Ancient Architecture”, Teatri Greci e Romani, I, ed. P. C. Rossetto-G. P. Sartorio, Alle Origini Del Linguaggio Rappresentato, Roma, 86-124.
  • Isler 2017
  • Isler, H. P., Antike Theatrebauten Ein Handbuch, Katalogband, Band 27, Österrichische Akademie Der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse Denkschrifte, 490 Band, Archaologische Forschungen, Verlag Der Österreichischen Akademie Der Wissenschaften Wien.
  • İzmirligil 2012
  • İzmirligil, Ü., “The Theatre at Side”, Restoration and Management of Ancient Theatres in Turkey, Proceedings of Hierapolis International Symposium, eds. F. Masino-P. Mighetto-G. Sobra, Galatina, 89-102.
  • Kardoruk 2020
  • Kardoruk, N., “İznik Roma Tiyatrosu Taş Eserleri Üzerine Bazı Gözlemler”, Propontis ve Çevre Kültürleri, ed. V. Keleş, Parion Studies III, Ege Yayınları, İstanbul, 435-450.
  • Kardoruk 2022a
  • Kardoruk, N., İznik (Nicaea) Tiyatrosu Taş Eserleri: Sütunlu Galeriler ve Çevresi, (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi), Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, İzmir.
  • Kardoruk 2022b
  • Kardoruk, N., “Yeni Bulgularla Birlikte İznik (Nicaea) Roma Tiyatrosu Kullanım İşlevleri ve Mimarisi”, Trakya Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 12/24, 31-62.
  • Kaya 2000
  • Kaya, M. A., Anadolu’daki Galatlar ve Galatya Tarihi, Ege Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayınları, İzmir.
  • Krinzinger-Ruggendorfer 2017
  • Krinzinger, F.-Ruggendorfer P., Das Theatre von Ephesos, Archaologischer Befund, Funde und Chronologie, Tafelband, Forschungen in Ephesos, Band II/1, Österreichischen Archaologischen Institut, Verlag Der Österreichischen Akademie Der Wissenschaften, Wien.
  • Lubenau 1912
  • Lubenau, R., Beschreibung Der Reisen Des Reinhold Lubenau, II, trans. W. A. L. Sahm, Königsberg.
  • Mansel 1962
  • Mansel, A. M., “Side Tiyatrosu”, Belleten, 26, 45-56.
  • Montanari 2018
  • Montanari, V., “Restoration of the Theatre Marcellus, Almost One Hundered Years Later”, Loggia, 31, 40-53.
  • Niemann vd. 1890
  • Niemann, G.-Petersen, E.-Lanckoronski, K. G., Städte Pamphyliens und Pisidiens I, Wien.
  • Öz 2019
  • Öz, A. K., “Son Dönem Kazıları Bağlamında İznik Roma Tiyatrosu’nun Mimari Özellikleri”, Arkeoloji ve Sanat, 161, 1-10.
  • Öz 2000
  • Öz, A. K., Batı Anadolu Hellenistik Dönem Tiyatroları Restitüsyon Önerileri ve Koruma Sorunları, (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi), Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, İzmir.
  • Öz-Ekin Meriç 2021
  • Öz, A. K.-Ekin Meriç, A., İznik Roma Tiyatrosu, Homer Kitabevi, İstanbul.
  • Özdilek 2011
  • Özdilek, B., Rhodiapolis Tiyatrosu ve Lykia Tiyatroları, (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi), Akdeniz Üniversitesi, Antalya.
  • Özer-Korkmaz 2014
  • Özer, E.-Korkmaz H., “Tarihsel Süreçte Aizanoi Kentindeki Dört Yapıda Tahrip ve Koruma”, Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 18, 11-20.
  • Öztekin 2017
  • Öztekin, V., Side Agora-Tiyatro Kompleksi, (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi), Anadolu Üniversitesi, Eskişehir.
  • Özüdoğru 2016
  • Özüdoğru, Ş., “Geç Antik Çağda Kibyra”, Cedrus, VI, 13-64.
  • Parker 1997
  • Parker, H. N., “The Observed of All Observers: Spectacle, Applause and Cultural Poetics in the Roman Theatre Audience”, The Art of Ancient Spectacle, ed. B. Bergmann-C. Kondoleon, Studies in the History of Art, Center for Advanced Study in the Visual Arts, Semposium Papers XXXIV, Yale University Press, Washington DC, 163-179.
  • Peschlow 2003
  • Peschlow, U., “The Churches of Nicaea/İznik”, İznik Throughout History, ed. I. Akbaygil-İ. Delemen-O. Aslanapa, İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, İstanbul, 201-218.
  • Platner 1929
  • Platner, S. B., A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome, rev. T. Ashby, London.
  • Pliny 1969
  • Pliny, Pliny the Younger, Letters II, trans. B. Radice, Books 8-10, Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge.
  • Plutarch 1906
  • Plutarch, Plutarch’s Lives, trans. J. Dryden, Boston.
  • Pococke 1743
  • Pococke, R. A., Description of the East and Some Other Countries, II, Observations on the Island of the Archipelago, Asia Minor, Thrace, Greece and Some Other Parts of Europe, London.
  • Scherrer 1995
  • Scherrer, P., Ephesos Der Neue Führer, Wien.
  • Schneider 1943
  • Schneider, A. M., Die Römischen und Byzantinischen Denkmaler von İznik (Nicea), İstanbuler Forschungen, 16, Berlin.
  • Schneider-Karnapp1938
  • Schneider, A. M.-Karnapp, W., Die Stadtmauer von Iznik (Nicaea), Istanbuler Forschungen 9, Berlin.
  • Sear 2006
  • Sear, F., Roman Theatres an Architectural Study, Oxford University Press, London.
  • Segal 1987
  • Segal, A., “Die Theaterbauten im Alten Palästina in Römisch-Byzantinischer Zeit: Eine historisch-archäologische Untersuchung”, Antike Welt, 18/1, 2-21.
  • Sestini 1779
  • Sestini, D., Lettere odeporiche o sia viaggio per la peninsola di Cizico, per Brussa e Nicea. Livorno.
  • Small 1983
  • Small, D. B., “Studies in Roman Theatre Design”, American Journal of Archaeology, 87/1, 55-68.
  • Sobra 2012
  • Sobra, G., “The Analysis of the Fragments from the Scaenae Frons of the Theatre in Hierapolis”, Restoration and Management of Ancient Theatres in Turkey: Methods, Research, Results, ed. F. Masino-P. Mighetto-G. Sobra, Proceedings of the Hierapolis International Symposium, 7-8 September 2007, Universite Der Salento Scuola Di Specializzazione in Beni Archeologici, Dinu Adamesteanu, Archeologia Storia II, Salento, 183-204.
  • Styler Aydın 2022
  • Styler Aydın, G., Der Zuschaerraum des Theatres von Ephesos, Forschungen in Ephesos, ed. S. Ladstatter-M. Steskal, Verlag Der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Band II/2, Wien.
  • Strabon 1856
  • Strabon, The Geography of Strabo, trans. H. C. Hamilton, 2, London.
  • Şahin 1979
  • Şahin, S., Katalog Der Antiken Inschriften des Museums von İznik (Nikaia), Stadt Gebiet und Die Nächste Umgebung der Stadt, Inschriften Griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien, Band 9, Teil: I, R. Habelt Verlag, Bonn.
  • Şahin 2013
  • Şahin, S., “Antik Kaynaklar Işığında Tarihte Bithynia Depremleri”, Eskiçağ Yazıları 5, ed. E. Akyürek Şahin-B. Takmer-F. Onur, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, İstanbul, 1-16.
  • Şahin-Merkelbach 1987
  • Şahin, S.-Merkelbach, R., Katalog Der Antiken Inschriften des Museums von Iznik (Nikaia). Inschriften Griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien, Testimonia, 10.3, R. Habelt Verlag, Bonn.
  • Tacitus 1937
  • Tacitus, The Annals, trans. J. Jackson, 5, New York.
  • Texier 1962
  • Texier, C., Asie Mineure Description Geographique Historique et Archeologique, Farmin Didot, Paris.
  • Uçar 2001
  • Uçar, A., “A Study of the 2nd Diazoma of the Side Theatre”, Historical Constructions, ed. P. B. Lourenço-P. Roca, Guimarães, 217-226.
  • Velleius Paterculus 1924
  • Velleius Paterculus, The Roman History, Loeb Classical Library, London.
  • Vitruvius 1914
  • Vitruvius, The Ten Books on Architecture, trans. M. H. Morgan, Cambridge.
  • Weber 1907
  • Weber, W., Untersuchungen zur Geschicte des Kaiser Hadrianus, Leipzig.
  • Yalman 1981
  • Yalman, B., “İznik Tiyatro Kazısı 1980”, 3. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, Ankara, 31-34.
  • Yalman 1992
  • Yalman, B., “İznik Tiyatro Kazısı 1990”, 13. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, Ankara, 377-402.
  • Yalman 1993
  • Yalman, B., “İznik Tiyatro Kazısı 1991”, 14. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, II, Ankara, 181-204.
  • Yalman 1996
  • Yalman, B., “1994 İznik Roma Tiyatrosu Kazısı”, 17. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, Ankara, 337-360.
  • Yalman 2007
  • Yalman, B., “2005 Yılı Tiyatro Kazısı”, 28. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, II, Ankara, 387-404.

Footnotes

  1. Strabon 12.4.7.
  2. The building called as theatrum Pompeianum, theatrum marmoreum, theatrum magnum (Velleius 2.48; Tacitus 14.20; Cassius Dio 39.38, Plutarch 5.42.4; Platner 1929, 515); Hanson 1959, Illust. 19; Isler 2017, 658.
  3. Tacitus 3.64; Cassius Dio 43.49.2; Plutarch 5.30.6; Sear 2006, 135; Montanari 2018, 41.3; Fiechter 1964, abb. 71; Parker 1997, 165, fig.4; Isler 2017, 662.
  4. Öz 2000, 46.
  5. Mansel 1962, 45-56; Alanyalı 2007, 84-91; Uçar 2001, 218, fig.1; Öztekin 2017, 23; Isler 2017, 705; Sear 2006, 377, plan. 401.
  6. Niemann-Petersan-Lanckoronski 1890; Ferrero 1988, 65; Isler 2017, 114; Sear 2006, 366, plan.383; Boz 2006, 31, pic.41.
  7. Heberdey-Niemann-Wilberg 1913; Scherrer 1995, 160; Styler-Aydın 2022, taf. 5; Krinzinger-Ruggendorfer 2017, taf.12.
  8. Erim 1976, 25; Ferrero 1988, 51; Sear 2006, 328, plan 320; Isler 2017, 75.
  9. Gerkan 1921; Bieber 1961, 108; Ferrero 1988, 34; Isler 2017, 637; Sear 2006, 349, plan 354.
  10. Dörpfeld-Reisch 1907, 150; Sear 2006, 347, plan. 349; Isler 2017, 587.
  11. Lubenau 1912, 221.
  12. Sestini 1779, 172.
  13. Pococke 1743, 121-123.
  14. Texier 1962, 56.
  15. Schneider 1943; Schneider-Karnapp 1938, 35.
  16. According to archaeological and architectural data, theatre is dated to the beginning of the 2nd cent. AD. (Yalman 1981, 34; Yalman 1992, 377; Yalman 1996, 345).
  17. Evans 2005, 171; Kardoruk 2020, 437.
  18. Pliny X.39.
  19. The ground survey and material analysis carried out in 2016 (Akyol 2016) were contrast with Pliny.
  20. The construction elements of the portico and colonnaded galleries were uncovered on both sides of the stage building (Ekin Meriç et al. 2018, 288).
  21. Şahin 2013, 5; Abbasoğlu-Delemen 2003, 192; Doğancı 2019, 543.
  22. “the public money and imperial bounty should be ill applied” (Pliny 40.1).
  23. “Architecti tibi deesse non possunt. Nulla prouincia non et peritos et ingeniosos homines habet; modo ne existimes breuius esse ab urbe mitti, cum ex Graecia etiam ad nos uenire soliti sint” (Pliny 40.3).
  24. Although the size of the theatre was mentioned as 84 x 63 m in previous publications, it was understood that it covers a wider area due to the artefacts discovered in recent excavations (Ekin Meriç et al. 2018, 286).
  25. Yalman 1981, 34.
  26. Ekin Meriç et al. 2018, 285-300; Ekin Meriç et al 2019, 293-310.
  27. Sear 2006, 135; Bieber 1961, 200.
  28. It was previously thought to be 12 vaults in the first excavations by Bedri Yalman (Yalman 1981, 31).
  29. The vault structures forming the infrastructure and vomitoria appearing in the upper cavea could not be distinguished in previous publications. In recent research, it was understood that four of the 14 openings supporting the infrastructure were used for circulation purposes (Ekin Meriç et al. 2018, 295).
  30. Sear 2006, 3.
  31. This solution has been introduced to keep the dignitaries away from the violent demonstrations taking place in the orchestra.
  32. There are mostly four or six cunei in the western part of the Roman Empire, whereas the number of cunei in the eastern part can be seven, nine, or even eleven (Sear 2006, 2).
  33. Vitruvius 5. 6. 3.
  34. Vitruvius, 5. 6. 3.
  35. Ferrero 1988.
  36. The tribunalia are special sections of the town’s elders or show directors. In some cases, special groups such as Vestal Virgins were also accommodated in the lodge (Sear 2006, 7).
  37. Sear 2006, 2.
  38. Peschlow 2003, 212; Kardoruk 2022b, 45-46.
  39. İzmirligil 2012, 91.
  40. Özüdoğru 2018, 39, 16, fig.5
  41. Ferrero 1988, 33; Sear 2006, 338, kat. plan 334; Isler 2017, 340.
  42. Sear 2006, 2.
  43. Karadoruk 2020, 441-442.
  44. Öz 2019, 1-10.
  45. Ferrero used the term summa cavea for the upper portico in the Nicaea theatre (Ferrero 1988, 16).
  46. Sear 2006, 7.
  47. Ekin Meriç 2019, 353.
  48. Yalman 2007, 392.
  49. Sear 2006, 9.
  50. Kardoruk 2022a, 653.
  51. Sear 2006, 135, 366, plan. 383; Bieber 1961, 181, 200; Isler 2017, 114; Boz 2006, 31, pic.41.
  52. Yalman 1993, 186.
  53. It is similar to the examples of the Art School at Pergamum in the 2nd cent. AD, such as the Red Basilica, the Trajaneum and the Upper Gymnasium (Heilmeyer 1970, 88, 90, 101, taf. 26, 27, 36), especially due to the craftmanship of acanthus leaves.
  54. Kardoruk 2022b, 40.
  55. Öz-Meriç 2021, 63.
  56. Öz 2019, 7.
  57. Horatius (Horace 2.279) mentions that the pulpit was made of wood plates in the Ars Poetica; “Aeschylus et modicis instrauit pulpita tignis”.
  58. Fiechter 1914, 108.
  59. Isler 1994, 121.
  60. Kardoruk 2022a, 139-639; Kardoruk 2022b, 36.
  61. This section is called versurae procurrentes (Vitruvius 5.6.8).
  62. Ekin Meriç et al. 2018, 289.
  63. Kardoruk 2022b, 36; Kardoruk 2022a, 640-667. These building units, which are located on both sides of the stage building and serve as an entrance hall, are named Basilica. For detailed information, see Sear 2006, 221.
  64. Segal 1987, 11, Abb. 20-21; Isler 2017, 171; Sear 2006, 308, pl. 288.
  65. Small 1983, 57, III.3; Sear 2006, 283, plan 256; Bomgardner 2016, 69, fig.5; Isler 2017, 438.
  66. Small 1983, 62, III.7; Iannace-Trematerra 2013, 2, fig. 2; Sear 2006, 143, pl. 36; Isler 2017, 167.
  67. Fiechter 1914, Abb. 71; Montanari 2018, 41.3; Fiechter 1964, abb. 71; Parker 1997, 165, fig.4; Isler 2017, 662.
  68. Doğancı 2001, 61-66; Doğancı 2015, 119-130; Doğancı 2019, 535-555.
  69. Eyice 1988, 5.
  70. Bosch 1948, 235.
  71. Eusebius 2.148–149.
  72. Eyice 1988, 9.
  73. Weber 1907, 128.
  74. An inscription on the Lefke Gate contains a writing dedicated to Hadrian’s support (Şahin-Merkelbach 1987, 13)
  75. Kaya 2000, 145; Şahin 1979, taf.17.
  76. Isler 1994, 121.
  77. Fiechter 1914, abb. 71; Montanari 2018, 41.3; Fiechter 1964, abb. 71; Parker 1997, 165, fig.4; Isler 2017, 662.
  78. Sear 2006, 125, pl.14; Isler 2017, 500.
  79. Isler 2017, 162-163, 205, 500, 658; Small 1983, 62, III.7; Iannace-Trematerra 2013, 2, fig. 2; Sear 2006, 143, pl. 36.
  80. Uçar 2001, 218, fig. 1; Öztekin 2017, 23; Isler 2017, 705; Sear 2006, 377, pl. 401.
  81. Özer-Korkmaz 2014, 298, şek. 5; Sear 2006, 325, pl. 316.
  82. Özdilek 2011, 382, kat. plan.18; Sear 2006, 370, pl. 389.
  83. Sear 2006, 372, kat. pl. 392.
  84. Sear 2006, 325, 370, 373 pl. 316, 389, 392.
  85. Özer-Korkmaz 2014, 298, şek. 5; Sear 2006, 325, plan. 316.
  86. Durm 1881, 215, 229; Bieber 1961, 220.
  87. Styler-Aydın, 2022, taf. 5; Krinzinger-Ruggendorfer 2017, taf.12.
  88. Sobra 2012, 187, fig. 5, 9, 10.
  89. Sear 2006, 335, 338 pl. 329, 334.
  90. Bieber 1961, 208; Isler 2017, 114.
  91. Bieber 1961, 211; Isler 2017, 130.
  92. Sear 2006, 202-203, pl.131; Isler 2017, 457.
  93. Sear 2006, 236, pl.190; Isler 2017, 453.
  94. Gebhard 2012, 331, fig.6; Sear 2006, 419, pl. 445; Isler 2017, 730.
  95. Bieber 1961, 127.
  96. Sear 2006, 320-321, pl. 308.
  97. Isler 2017, 556; Sear 129, pl. 19.
  98. Bieber 1961, 191; Isler 2017, 556.
  99. Ekin Meriç 2018, 85-122.
  100. Kardoruk 2022b, 31-62.

Şekil ve Tablolar

Fig. 1. Map of the Bithynia Region (drawing A. K. Öz 2018)
Fig. 2. Map of Nicaea (drawing A. K. Öz 2018)
Fig. 3. General view of theatre (courtesy of the Roman Theatre Excavation at Nicaea 2021)
Fig. 4. Remains of cavea and west analemma (courtesy of the Roman Theatre Excavation at Nicaea 2019)
Fig. 5. General plan of theatre (courtesy of the Roman Theatre Excavation at Nicaea 2017)
Fig. 6. Infrastructural plan of theatre (drawing A. K. Öz 2018)
Fig. 7. Imposing vaulted infrastructure of cavea (courtesy of the Roman Theatre Excavation at Nicaea 2020)
Fig. 8. Illustrated plan of theatre (drawing A.K. Öz, 2018)
Fig. 9. Illustrated section of the theatre (drawing A.K. Öz, 2018)
Fig. 10. Blocks of the west portico and vomitorium (courtesy of the Roman Theatre Excavation at Nicaea 2020)
Fig. 11. Fallen blocks from the portico of upper cavea (courtesy of the Roman Theatre Excavation at Nicaea 2020)
Fig. 12. View from scaenae to cavea (courtesy of the Roman Theatre Excavation at Nicaea 2020)
Fig. 13. Architectural fragments of stage building (courtesy of the Roman Theatre Excavation at Nicaea 2020)
Fig. 14. Illustrated view of east portico (drawing A.K. Öz, 2018)
Fig. 15. Reconstruction of west portico (drawing F. H. Kaya; V. C. Caner, 2016)
Fig. 16. Hermae in east portico (courtesy of the Roman Theatre Excavation at Nicaea 2017)
Fig. 17. Possible reconstruction of theatre (courtesy of the Roman Theatre Excavation at Nicaea 2021)